Have you ever noticed we typically attempt to solve problems without fully understanding them? We develop a solution before we actually understand what we are looking at. We never actually solve the problem when this occurs.
We fall into a trap when we overlook problems. Have you ever had an uncomfortable feeling when you just knew what you were doing conflicts with what you know you should be doing? This is called cognitive dissonance and we have all had this feeling. Yet, cognitive dissonance can be a powerful motivator for changing your behavior. Think of the need for exercise. People will find all kinds of excuses to explain away their unhealthy habit of not exercising. Yet, they know they should be doing it. At some point, this uncomfortable feeling may assist them in changing their behavior, but they need a method to help them change.
Developing an Alternative Future
We must strive to fix problems by analyzing potential causes. This brings to mind a quote from Helen Keller as often times we fail to see what is right in front of us.
“The only thing worse than being blind is having sight but no vision.”
One such method we can use to assist us is a futures research method focusing on in-depth analysis of current problems called Causal Layer Analysis (CLA). CLA was developed by Sohail Inayatullah and provides us a way to develop alternative futures.  So, what exactly is CLA and how can we use it? To answer this, let’s look at how we can use it to move past assumptions and biases in developing alternative futures for a problem.
How Causal Layer Analysis Makes the Invisible Visible
CLA possesses 4 dimensions; where dimensions 1 and 2 are the most visible and dimensions 3 and 4 are deeper (less visible).
Four Dimensions of CLA
The Litany (day-to-day) future where solutions to problems are typically short term.
Systemic Causes focused on social, economic, and political issues.
The Worldview or the big picture paradigm informing what we think our reality is.
The Myth or Metaphor where the deep unconscious story resides.
Let’s take a look at how each dimension is framed, questions to ask for each, and an example of each. 
Dimension 1: Litany
Here we are defining the problem. This is our unquestioned view of reality. For example, I am a former foster child and active in research to improve the current state of the foster care system. Think of our earlier discussion on cognitive dissonance. Whenever the deep issues in foster care are discussed, people tend to shut down and fail to engage in conversation. Instead, they view the conversation as an attack. They know there has to be a better way (and that the system is failing), yet they stick with the model they are comfortable with.
Questions to ask in this dimension:
What is the issue?
How is the issue being reported in the media?
What are the known facts?
What is widely believed and not questioned?
Litany example: The foster care system is surrounded with a ‘litany’ of problems. The insane reality of the foster care system can be summed up through these 5 key points:
Often times you are stuck in a bad situation (either with your biological family or in foster care). If you fail to “win the lottery” and get adopted by a good family, you could be stuck in a horrific life.
Foster parents and the foster care system “may not” (notice how I said “may not”) have a childs best interest in mind.
A child can be surrounded and literally changed by bad influences.
Kids often disappear into the foster care system. Essentially, they are a life discarded.
Children get stuck in a viscous cycle of failure.
Dimension 2: Systemic Causes
Here we are looking at the systemic analysis and conducting an audit of the causes to the problem.
Systemic Causes example: The Kansas foster care system is privatized. Yet, the system is in a state of crisis as more and more children are entering the foster care system. The current solution is to spend more; however, there is a strong positive correlation between spending more and the increased number of children entering foster care. This could be due to the fact that the contract ceases payment to contractors once a child leaves the foster care system.  Furthermore, the more children ente ring the system creates a need for more foster parents, for which there is already a shortage.
Questions to ask in this dimension:
What factors are influencing the issue?
Who is involved?
What are the underlying causes?
Let’s look at a tool we can use to help us in this dimension.
The Futures Wheel
The futures wheel can assist us in anticipating future issues. This also helps us create new possibilities by seeing the world from an unconnected to a complex connected reality. 
Continuing with our foster care example, let’s look at the current problem and see what the future looks like if we fail to change. Let’s look at the consequences and what is causing the Litany to appear on the “surface” in its current form. Here’s an example of the futures wheel:
Dimension 3: Worldview
The Worldview is creating the present reality. Here we are looking at the current paradigms, cultures, and values. This includes the hidden societal values and structures that remain unquestioned. In this deeper layer, we are also looking at the values behind the ‘powers’ or influencers that perpetuate the litany. 
What are the dominant views and ideologies of the ‘powers’ for this issue?
Worldview example: There are a large number of stakeholders in the foster care system and they all have different views and ideologies. However, it is apparent that the current foster care paradigm needs shattered. We all recognize the foster care system is failing, yet, the current Worldview is we assume people will always do what is in the best interest of a child.
Dimension 4: Myth or Metaphor
Moving to the deepest layer of CLA is the Myth or Metaphor dimension. Here we are looking at the images that come to mind when we think of an issue and the gut or emotional responses the issue evokes.
Questions to ask in this dimension: 1) What encapsulates the feelings in which this Worldview is grounded? 2) What myths or folk stories come to mind? 3) What metaphors come to mind?
Myth or Metaphor example:
The Allegory of the Cave presented by Greek philosopher Plato is a perfect comparison to the world of a foster child. This example would take up an entire article in itself. I recommend the following video if you are interested in learning more on this topic: The Cave
A child in foster care is like a stray puzzle piece. 
Foster care is like never-ending rain that turns a river into a raging torrent, sweeping away everything in its path.
So, what should we do now?
Create alternative futures with the end in mind
After you complete your CLA, the next thing you must do is choose a different myth, metaphor, or narrative and create new (alternative) futures moving back up through the same dimensions. Flip the current system or paradigm on its head! Let’s stick with the river metaphor and create a new reality for foster children.
Foster care is like a never-ending rain that turns a river into a raging torrent, sweeping away everything in its path. Let’s imagine what would happen if a foster child broke the cycle of failure… what if the rain stopped? When the rain finally stops and the flood subsides, the old growth has gone and there’s new fertile land waiting to be farmed.
To help us imagine this, let’s use a powerful tool called Backcasting.
Move Backwards From Your Vision to the Present
Backcasting is a navigational tool we can use to solve difficult or “Wicked” problems. With Backcasting, we start with the end in mind, where multiple paths exist. Another way to think of it is to think of scouting ahead. Let’s see what it looks like and walk through an example. 
Steps in Backcasting
Step #1: Set the timeframe.
Step #2: List how the problem is currently functioning by using your current CLA.
Step #3: Define possible future states, for which I identified three. Complete a Future Wheel for each of these alternative future states.
Step #4: Work backwards identifying actions and indicators.
Step #5: Assess risks and opportunities.
Backcasting is an extremely powerful tool as we can begin with the desired end state and work backwards uncovering (previously) hidden strategies to produce phenomenal transformation. It’s amazing the potential that exists if we would use these powerful approaches. CLA, Future Wheels, and Backcasting provide us an opportunity to radically improve any problem placed in front of us.
When developing a solution to a problem, we cannot simply look at a single cause and effect relationship. This is not nearly dynamic enough. If we do this, we will overlook a problem. So, we must learn to find a problems blindspot. Lastly, I am reminded of a famous quote by Friedrich Nietzsche,
“When you look long into an abyss, the abyss also looks into you.”
As humans, we typically operate on cognitive autopilot. We rarely stop and reflect on how we interpret information and create mental models which replicate our perception of reality.
But when our mental models fail to match reality, we simply ignore reality and operate throughout the day on implicit assumptions. These are not conscious choices. Our mental models allow us a simple way to cope with reality, yet we fail to confront reality when it is different than our mental model. Essentially, we have unknowingly created a ready-made default mechanism. 
So, what can we do?
We must first take time to reflect on our critical thinking skills. By simply understanding how you interpret and perceive information differently than everyone else is a great first step. To truly upgrade your critical thinking skills, you must examine how thoughts arise in your mind and how they got there.
Critical thinking is about asking yourself how you make choices. We can choose to believe something we hear or see; however, why do we choose to believe something we hear or see?
As a Red Team Member in the U.S. Army, I will explain how I upgrade my critical thinking skills using Colonel John Boyd’s OODA Loop as a framework for critical thinking. I will then demonstrate practical ways to upgrade your critical thinking skills for a sharper mind using tools and techniques from the University of Foreign Military and Cultural Studies (UFMCS) Center for Applied Critical Thinking (also known as the Red Team school) and The Applied Critical Thinking Handbook (also known as The Red Team Handbook).
Critical thinking can be explained in a number of ways. Let’s quickly examine a few definitions:
“Critical thinking is a process, the goal of which is to make reasonable decisions about what to believe and what to do.” – Robert Enis
“Critical thinking means developing an ever better worldview and using it well in all aspects of your life. The essence of critical thinking is questioning and arguing logically.” – Gary Jason
“Critical thinking is searching for hidden assumptions, noticing various facets, unraveling different strands, and evaluating what is most significant. It implies conscious, deliberate inquiry, and especially it implies adopting a skeptical state of mind.” – Sylvan Barnet and Hugo Bedau
To me, critical thinking is as follows:
“Critical thinking is observing the world with an open and skeptical mindset with the goal of exploring all alternatives objectively (as much as possible). It is our ability to orient our mental models to view reality through an emotionless lens seeking the truth by questioning our own assumptions and deconstructing arguments logically. It is our ability to identify gaps and uncover what is missing to improve our quality of decisions. Finally, it is our ability to unravel different strands of significant information through a continuous stream of feedback so that we continuously destroy and create new mental models allowing us to act closer to reality.” – Dr. Jamie Schwandt
Critical Thinking Framework: OODA Loop
I use John Boyd’s OODA Loop as a framework for critical thinking. It is similar to Swarm Intelligence, where we use simple rules to allow the collective intelligence to emerge. The simple rules are Observe, Orient, Decide, and Act.
The OODA Loop is a high-speed decision making and feedback process in four stages: Observe, Orient, Decide, and Act. The OODA Loop is a continuous feedback loop where the objective is to go through the loop faster than your opponent.
I use simple rules provided within the OODA Loop to assist me in speeding up my critical and creative thinking abilities. However, do not confuse the word “simple” with “simplistic” as the OODA Loop uses simple rules within a complex system (which is exactly what the OODA Loop is).
The key to the loop is feedback. The OODA Loop is similar to Double-Loop Learning, where the goal is to modify decision-making in light of new experience.
Double-Loop Learning is the first loop uses goals or decision making rules, the second loop enables their modification… hence, double-loop.
Chris Argyris writes about Double-Loop Learning in Teaching Smart People How To Learn,
“A thermostat that automatically turns on the heat whenever the temperature in a room drops below 68 degree is a good example of single-loop learning. A thermostat that could ask why am I set to 68 degree? and then explore whether or not some other temperature might more economically achieve the goal of heating the room would be engaged in double-loop learning.
The overarching guide for my use of the OODA Loop is as follows:
I will talk about this more in the How-To Guide: Tools to Apply the Critical Thinker’s OODA Loop section below.
It’s about seeking truth. Here we should seek to follow a concept introduced by Immanuel Kant as a way of evaluating motivations for actions – called the Categorical Imperative. Kant defines a categorical imperative as an absolute or an unconditional requirement that must be obeyed in all circumstances and is justified as an end in itself. For example, “Act only according to the maxim whereby you can, at the same time, will that it should become a universal law.” For more information, visit the Categorical Imperative.
This is essentially solving problems by working backwards. A simple example of this method is working backwards to solve a math problem.
For example, solve the following problem: “I think of a number and add three to it, multiply the result by 2, subtract 4 and divide by 7. The number I end up with is 2. What was the number I first thought of?” To solve, read the problem backwards. You start with: 2 x 7 = 14. Then take 14 + 4 = 18. From there take 18 / 2 = 9. Then take 9 – 3 = 6. Finally, the number you first thought of was 6.
Moreover, Reasoning Backwards can be viewed through the lens of deduction. I prefer deduction over induction and here is why:
An example of Inductive Reasoning is: this raven is black, that raven is black, all ravens are black.
Deductive Reasoning is: All ravens are black, that raven is black, therefore it is black.
We make deductions from laws to see what should happen and then experiment to see if our prediction was right. Think about it this way… to test whether a burner is hot, we must touch the burner first using Inductive Reasoning; however, if we were to use Deductive Reasoning, we would first predict the burner to be hot and would realize there is not need to touch it.
One last benefit of Reasoning Backwards is that it forces our linear and logical mind to catch things we wouldn’t normally catch. For example, read the following sentence:
After reading this sentence, you will realize that the the brain doesn’t recognize a second ‘the’.
Now read the sentence again, this time read it backwards. Did you notice that you missed the second ‘the’?
The UFMCS uses this as the single most important idea to enable critical thinking. For example, prior to taking on an issue, we should first think independently and reflectively, then write down our thoughts (which assists us in shaping and refining them), then share them in a disciplined manner. This takes us from divergence to convergence.
Boyd described a thought experiment in a presentation called Strategic Game of ? and ?. Through the process of Destructive Deduction (analyze and pull apart mental concepts into discrete parts) and Creative Induction (using these elements to form new mental concepts) we can create a new mental model that more closely aligns with reality.
Part 1 of his question:
“Imagine that you are on a ski slope with other skiers…that you are in Florida riding in an outboard motorboat, maybe even towing water-skiers. Imagine that you are riding a bicycle on a nice spring day. Imagine that you are a parent taking your son to a department store and that you notice he is fascinated by the toy tractors or tanks with rubber caterpillar treads.”
“Now imagine that you pull the skis off but you are still on the ski slope. Imagine also that you remove the outboard motor from the motorboat, and you are no longer in Florida. And from the bicycle you remove the handle-bar and discard the rest of the bike. Finally, you take off the rubber treads from the toy tractor or tanks. This leaves only the following separate pieces: skis, outboard motor, handlebars and rubber treads.”
What do you imagine could be created using the remaining parts? A Snowmobile
Let’s now turn our attention to the four simple rules within the OODA Loop.
The Critical Thinker’s OODA Loop: Simple Rules to Guide You
Think of how we use sensors and gather information. In an ant colony, this is where ants shoot pheromones to signal others when they have found food.
Here we are detecting events within our environment and identifying change (or lack thereof). This could also be identified as Locate or Perceive (think swarming tactics or artificial intelligence).
Find out what is really there.
Observe first and gather data.
Identify the uncommon and common things. As Sherlock Holmes famously said, “What is out of common is a guide.” A great video on this point is The most unlikely threat from the hit movie Men in Black – watch the following video:
Begin with a blank and open mind.
Remember that there is nothing more deceptive than an obvious fact.
Key questions to ask:
What are we being asked?
What do we know?
Key tools to use:
6 Words. This is simply writing a short and precise phrase summarizing your thinking into a set number of words.
Key assumptions check. We all start with assumptions and it is extremely important to be aware of our own. Understanding this will allow us to explain the logic of an argument and expose faulty logic. It will also help us simulate thinking about a problem and uncover hidden links between factors. Let’s examine some key questions to ask here: 1) How much confidence do you have with this assumption?; 2) What explains your confidence with this assumption?; 3) What must exist for this assumption to be valid?; and 4) If this assumption proves wrong, will this change your line of thinking about the issue?
Analysis + Synthesis. By breaking a concept or problem apart (analysis) we develop knowledge; yet, it’s when we piece the parts back together (synthesis) and create something new that we develop understanding or wisdom.
Onion Model. Hofstede’s Onion Model is a great tool to find values at the core. It is a great way to prompt better questions, look at something or someone or some group from multiple perspectives, and expose ignorance.
neXt – Innovative Framework. Professor Ramesh Raskar, head of MIT Media Lab’s Camera Culture Research Group, created an easy-to-use framework for inventing the future – right now. Watch the following video:
Think of a hypothesis like you would when putting a puzzle together, where you are making predictions then testing those predictions.
Devils Advocacy. Here you are trying to prove the opposite and disprove the hypothesis. Essentially, you are trying to prove the limitations.
Alternative Futures Analysis
Analysis of Competing Hypotheses (ACH) (see below)
The Value of Possible. Here is a logical system incorporating elements of language. In this method, we have three truth values: False, True, and Possible. Logical connective rules: True is p, Possible is q, and False has no value. This allows for something to be fuzzy (not clearly black or white… true or false) but could still be true.
Think of testing and retesting a hypothesis.
According to Boyd, actions should be rapid, surprising, ambiguous, and ever changing. This could be identified as Disperse or Learn.
Carry out your decision (or selected action) while the opponent is still observing the last action.
As Sherlock Holmes said, “Nothing clears up a case so much as stating it to another person.”
Develop quick “fly-like” reactions.
Use simple rules to guide your actions or the actions of a group.
Find the desired path. For example, watch how routes on a college campus naturally form. Wouldn’t it be interesting if we allowed these to naturally form then simply pave those locations. For more on this idea, watch the following video Find and Pave the Desired Path:
Key questions to ask:
What did I learn?
What type of feedback did I receive?
What type of feedback am I still receiving (we are continuously receiving feedback)?
What can I do with this new information as my OODA Loop begins again?
The UFMCS provides a powerful framework for deconstructing an argument.
What is the argument? Here the argument = problem (or premise) + reasons + conclusion
Check to make sure the right problem is identified and examine the point of view of the other person.
Search for and ask for clarification of ambiguous words.
Look for value conflicts and check key assumptions. More specifically, look for prescriptive assumptions (statement made on the way things should be) and descriptive assumptions (statement made on the way things are).
Check the evidence provided. Does the person use personal experience, potentially deceptive statistics (use numbers without percentages – percentages without numbers), appeal to authorities, faulty analogies, intuition, etc.
Is there another plausible hypotheses which might explain the situation?
Are there any other conclusions you can draw from the argument?
What implications does accepting the argument pose?
2. The 4 Agreements
Another great way the U.S. Army Red Team community upgrades their critical thinking ability is through the following four agreements:
Don’t make assumptions.
Don’t take anything personal.
Be impeccable with your words.
Always do your best.
Finally, I recommend using the following mnemonic. I created this tool to assist me as I move through the Critical Thinker’s OODA Loop. Additionally, I recommend writing this down on a note-card and keeping a copy with you at all times.
Think like a Scout – the drive to see what’s really there.
In the following video Why you think you’re right-even if you’re wrong, Julia Galef examines the motivation between two mindsets (Scout mindset vs Soldier mindset) and how they shape the way we interpret information:
Galef explains that Scouts are curious and are more likely to feel pleasure when they learn new information. She says it’s like an itch to solve a puzzle. We should strive to develop a Scout Mindset. Let’s examine qualities Scout’s possess:
The Scout’s job is not to attack or defend, but to understand – to go out, map the terrain and identify potential obstacles.
Scout’s are intrigued when they encounter something that contradicts their expectations.
More likely to think it’s virtuous to test your own beliefs.
They do not say someone is weak for simply changing their mind.
They are grounded; meaning their self-worth isn’t tied to how right or wrong they are about an argument.
They are proud (and not ashamed) when they notice they might be wrong about something.
They are intrigued (and not defensive) when they encounter information that contradicts their beliefs.
They yearn not to defend their beliefs, but to see the world as clearly as they possibly can.
Above all, the Scout seeks to know what’s really there.
Find the Dog who isn’t barking.
In Arthur Conan Doyle’s Sherlock Holmes story Silver Blaze, we are presented with a mystery of the disappearance of a famous racehorse the night prior to a race and the murder of the horse’s trainer. Mike Skotnicki describes the story about The Dog that Didn’t Bark:
“The dog that didn’t bark. What we can learn from Sir Arthur Conan Doyle about using the absence of expected facts.” – Mike Skotnicki
Sherlock Holmes solves the mystery in part by recognizing that no one he spoke to in his investigation remarked that they had heard barking from the watchdog during the night.
Gregory (Scotland Yard detective), “Is there any other point to which you would wish to draw my attention?”
Sherlock Holmes, “To the curious incident of the dog in the night-time.”
Gregory, “The dog did nothing in the night-time.”
Sherlock Holmes, “That was the curious incident.”
The fact that the dog did not bark when we would have expected it to while the horse was stolen led Holmes to the conclusion that the criminal was not a stranger to the dog, but someone the dog recognized; thus, would not cause the dog to bark.
What would have to exist for something to be true?
Here we can use a UFMCS Red Team tool called What If? Analysis. This tool assumes an event has already happened with potential impact (positive or negative) and explains how it might play out. This is a powerful technique for challenging a closed mindset by shifting the focus from whether an event could occur to how it might happen.
Clearly state the conventional line assuming the event has happened, then step back and consider what alternative outcomes are too important to dismiss, even if unlikely.
Select triggering events that allowed the event to happen.
Develop a chain of argumentation.
Reason backwards from the event in concrete ways (specify what must occur at each stage).
Choose one or more plausible pathways.
Develop and monitor a list of indicators or observables for each scenario that would assist in detecting the beginning of the event.
Another technique you can use here is The Reductio ad Absurdum. This is a simple yet powerful tool.
Assume a statement to be true and see what conclusions you can discern from it. If you find you get a contradiction, you know the initial statement is false as contradictions are always false.
It allows you to determine if a statement is false by showing the contradiction.
Here we can use a combination of tools and techniques.
For example, if you have a team or group of people, you could use what’s called a Premortem and/or Postmortem Analysis. This is an application of mental stimulation and is a great tool for Group Think Mitigation. We could use the 5-Why technique after we have asked what happened. We could also use Algorithmic Thinking where we perform an If-And-Then series of questions.
Let’s combine the three and see how this can be used:
Assume an event has happened or after an event has happened – use 5-Why to identify causes as to why this event happened.
Generate a list of reasons for the event with the following simple rules: 1) The more ideas the better; 2) Build on other peoples ideas using them as prompts for your own; 3) Wacky ideas are fine (and sometimes preferred).
Ask a series of If-And-Then questions:
IF an Active Shooter is spotted AND appropriate signals are in place THEN we should be able to act/respond quicker.
This can also be used with Propositional Calculus. For example, “If you are a bird, then you have wings,” could be rephrased as, “You cannot be a bird and not have wings.” It is a proposition using one connective such as: IF-Then. It can then be transformed into an expression using the other connectives “and” and “not” without changing the validity of the statement.
Ask what evidence is not being seen, but would be expected for a hypothesis to be true.
Conduct an Analysis of Competing Hypotheses (ACH). The objective is to identify alternative explanations (hypotheses) and evaluate the evidence that will disconfirm rather than confirm the hypotheses. This is how I reason backwards.
Brainstorm and list all possible hypotheses (no matter how improbable they may seem). List the hypotheses first then the evidence (think deductive reasoning). You can list the evidence first, then the hypotheses if you prefer (think inductive reasoning).
List all significant evidence and arguments relevant to each hypotheses.
Reason backwards by creating a divergent systems diagram with each hypotheses from right to left (to mimic backwards reasoning)
Start to converge by preparing a matrix listing the hypotheses across the top with each piece of evidence down the side.
Determine if each piece of evidence is consistent, inconsistent, or non applicable.
Refine the matrix by reconsidering each hypotheses. Here you can even add new information if applicable.
Focus on disproving each hypotheses rather than proving one. Tally your evidence that are inconsistent and consistent to see which hypotheses are the weakest and strongest (you can also identify this using your systems diagram… +/- for strong and weak connections).
Ask what evidence is not being seen, but would be expected for a given hypotheses to be true. Ask if denial and/or deception is a possibility.
Identify and monitor indicators that would be consistent and inconsistent with each hypotheses.
Where are the Pattern (or location) of bullet holes NOT located?
Statistician Abraham Wald was tasked with helping the Allies decide where to add armor to bombers during World War II. The Allies hoped extra protection would help minimize bomber losses due to enemy anti-aircraft fire. They thought the answer was obvious and the bombers returning from missions showed them where to put the extra armor. However, Wald disagreed. He explained the damage actually revealed the locations that needed the least additional armor. In essence, it’s where the bombers could be hit and still survive the flight home.
This is an example of selection or survivorship bias, where we typically only consider information that’s presented to us and ignore information that is absent, yet might just be significantly relevant. For example, the locations on the bombers without bullet holes might just be the location to reinforce.
Finally, we should be extremely carefully of what we remove from a system or process. We have to be aware of the second and third order effects.
I will leave you with one final video: How Wolves Change Rivers: